Communists and Socialists, what do you think of homosexuals?

[Herrebrugh]

Socialism and communism strive for an egalitarian society. I'd say homosexuals being treated equally to heterosexuals fits in perfectly with that ideal.

[Blakullar]

I'm all for gay relationships, and if someone wishes to express their love for somebody of the same gender there should be no reason why they shouldn't enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual couple. This is coming from a Stalinist, if you wanted to tally it. However, it might be worth noting that I have grown up amongst a liberal culture (the UK), and I think that the culture defines one's attitude to homosexuality, rather than ideology.

Let's use the Soviet Union, your example. The Russians have always held a conservative attitude towards morality, stemming from the Tsarist era where the Eastern Orthodox Church dominated politics and public opinion (so far that the official ideology of the Romanov state from the reign of Nicholas I onwards was Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationalism). The passing down of cultural values from Tsarist-era parents to Soviet-era children meant that homosexuality was vilified throughout Soviet times (as you said, it was compared to paedophilia), and still is in the modern Russian Federation (and other former Soviet states) today. On the flip side, we have the next most famous communist country, China. The Chinese have always had a liberal attitude towards LGBT, and gay relationships were and still are widely accepted, though not officially. The government remains neutral towards LGBT rights, stating "No approval, no disapproval, no promotion", and it still doesn't recognise gay marriage (yet).

[Duvniask]

Not a problem at all, and I'm frankly disappointed when people I know react with disgust towards it.

[Lyttenburg]

I'm all for gay relationships, and if someone wishes to express their love for somebody of the same gender there should be no reason why they shouldn't enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual couple. This is coming from a Stalinist, if you wanted to tally it. However, it might be worth noting that I have grown up amongst a liberal culture (the UK), and I think that the culture defines one's attitude to homosexuality, rather than ideology.

Let's use the Soviet Union, your example. The Russians have always held a conservative attitude towards morality, stemming from the Tsarist era where the Eastern Orthodox Church dominated politics and public opinion (so far that the official ideology of the Romanov state from the reign of Nicholas I onwards was Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationalism). The passing down of cultural values from Tsarist-era parents to Soviet-era children meant that homosexuality was vilified throughout Soviet times (as you said, it was compared to paedophilia), and still is in the modern Russian Federation (and other former Soviet states) today. On the flip side, we have the next most famous communist country, China. The Chinese have always had a liberal attitude towards LGBT, and gay relationships were and still are widely accepted, though not officially. The government remains neutral towards LGBT rights, stating "No approval, no disapproval, no promotion", and it still doesn't recognise gay marriage (yet).

First of all - you mistranslated "Православие, Самодержавие, Народность" un-official ideology motto accepted by Nicholas I, which should become and anthithesis for the revolutionary "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite". "Народность" is not "Nationalism", it means Czar should strive to upheld Russian traditions and customs and not blindly follow foreign (and dangerous) ideas, like revolutionary ones. If this is "Nationalism" for you then, duh! This "Nicholas Triad" surely played an important role, but only during his reign. So, no, you can't lump all Russian Imperial history in one homogenious thing.

Next, while Orthodox church surely didn't support homosexualism, it didn't actively persecuted it either (especially, among the nobles). It was indeed that very fact that quite a lot of aristocrats and upper class aligned bohemian types lead such open lifestyle, that allowed Bolsheviks to claim that it was "corrupting behavior appropriate for the class of exploiters, that has no place in the state of workers and peasants", or something along that lines. There were hardly any "passing of cultural values" from some abstract "Tsarist time Russians" to the equally abstract "Soviets" - unless, you really think that blowing up churches and cathedrals, mass execution of nobles, priests and "counter-revolutionary elements" is such thing.

As for Russia now - yes, quite a lot of people think that homosexuality is something that "only rich or people with too much free time on their hands" are engaging in. The reality and most prominent examples of gayctivists in Russia are... not really discouraging this line of thinking. Ivan Dulin, gay-milling machine operator from Chelyabinsk, remains purely fictional character.

[Othelos]

I'm all for gay relationships, and if someone wishes to express their love for somebody of the same gender there should be no reason why they shouldn't enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual couple. This is coming from a Stalinist, if you wanted to tally it. However, it might be worth noting that I have grown up amongst a liberal culture (the UK), and I think that the culture defines one's attitude to homosexuality, rather than ideology.

Let's use the Soviet Union, your example. The Russians have always held a conservative attitude towards morality, stemming from the Tsarist era where the Eastern Orthodox Church dominated politics and public opinion (so far that the official ideology of the Romanov state from the reign of Nicholas I onwards was Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationalism). The passing down of cultural values from Tsarist-era parents to Soviet-era children meant that homosexuality was vilified throughout Soviet times (as you said, it was compared to paedophilia), and still is in the modern Russian Federation (and other former Soviet states) today. On the flip side, we have the next most famous communist country, China. The Chinese have always had a liberal attitude towards LGBT, and gay relationships were and still are widely accepted, though not officially. The government remains neutral towards LGBT rights, stating "No approval, no disapproval, no promotion", and it still doesn't recognise gay marriage (yet).

First of all - you mistranslated "Православие, Самодержавие, Народность" un-official ideology motto accepted by Nicholas I, which should become and anthithesis for the revolutionary "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite". "Народность" is not "Nationalism", it means Czar should strive to upheld Russian traditions and customs and not blindly follow foreign (and dangerous) ideas, like revolutionary ones. If this is "Nationalism" for you then, duh! This "Nicholas Triad" surely played an important role, but only during his reign. So, no, you can't lump all Russian Imperial history in one homogenious thing.

Next, while Orthodox church surely didn't support homosexualism

You mean homosexuality?

[Lyttenburg]

First of all - you mistranslated "Православие, Самодержавие, Народность" un-official ideology motto accepted by Nicholas I, which should become and anthithesis for the revolutionary "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite". "Народность" is not "Nationalism", it means Czar should strive to upheld Russian traditions and customs and not blindly follow foreign (and dangerous) ideas, like revolutionary ones. If this is "Nationalism" for you then, duh! This "Nicholas Triad" surely played an important role, but only during his reign. So, no, you can't lump all Russian Imperial history in one homogenious thing.

Next, while Orthodox church surely didn't support homosexualism

You mean homosexuality?

I wrote what I've wrote. I've alredy defended the correctness of use of the word homosexualism in this thread twice, got reported for that and Mods found nothing criminal or wrong in my words.

Live with this.

[Othelos]

You mean homosexuality?

I wrote what I've wrote. I've alredy defended the correctness of use of the word homosexualism in this thread twice, got reported for that and Mods found nothing criminal or wrong in my words.

Live with this.

It's just awkward.

[Mineness]

Homosexuality is a result of the over-activity of the Sartrean recognition of oneself, this recognition being so strong and powerful that the reflexive recognition begins to embed itself in others, constituting the ontological basis for homosexual attraction.

[Bezombia]

Card-carrying commie here.

Homosexuals have about as much standing in my mind as heterosexuals. The only difference to me is that I'm one and not the other. They should have the same legal and social standing as non-homosexuals.

And I must question the intent of anyone who disagrees.

[Othelos]

Homosexuality is a result of the over-activity of the Sartrean recognition of oneself, this recognition being so strong and powerful that the reflexive recognition begins to embed itself in others, constituting the ontological basis for homosexual attraction.

Eh, I think it has more to do with biology, since identical twins are more likely to share the same orientation than the general population (ex. If one is homosexual, the other has a 70% chance of also being homosexual).

[Mineness]

Homosexuality is a result of the over-activity of the Sartrean recognition of oneself, this recognition being so strong and powerful that the reflexive recognition begins to embed itself in others, constituting the ontological basis for homosexual attraction.

Eh, I think it has more to do with biology, since identical twins are more likely to share the same orientation than the general population (ex. If one is homosexual, the other has a 70% chance of also being homosexual).

I am referring to the ontological basis of homosexuality, not how they manifest themselves in the ontic properties of entities.

[Egalitarian Calcova]

Live and let live.

[Othelos]

Eh, I think it has more to do with biology, since identical twins are more likely to share the same orientation than the general population (ex. If one is homosexual, the other has a 70% chance of also being homosexual).

I am referring to the ontological basis of homosexuality, not how they manifest themselves in the ontic properties of entities.

Ok? I am saying that it's more likely to be rooted in biology.

[Grenartia]

You mean homosexuality?

I wrote what I've wrote. 1. I've alredy defended the correctness of use of the word homosexualism in 2. this thread twice, 3. got reported for that and Mods found nothing criminal or wrong in my words.

Live with this.

1. And us native English speakers have already explained to you MULTIPLE times how your use of the word is indefensible, and of how you pretending its legitimate is about as stupid as us using the Russian phrase "to get disappeared (as in, the political sense)" to mean "to get lost (as in the wilderness)".

2. You might want to recheck the URL for that link.

http://forum.nationstates.net/styles/prosilver-ns/imageset/icon_post_target.gif

3. Because the mods don't usually consider grammatical incorrectness to be actionable, unless its spamming or an obvious cover for trolling. This does not mean, however, that we can't call you out for using the wrong terminology and abusing the English language.

[Lyttenburg]

1. And us native English speakers have already explained to you MULTIPLE times how your use of the word is indefensible, and of how you pretending its legitimate is about as stupid as us using the Russian phrase "to get disappeared (as in, the political sense)" to mean "to get lost (as in the wilderness)".

If you are such a lingusitics expert, can you tell me what is a "Russian phrase to get disappeared (as in, the political sense)"?..

3. Because the mods don't usually consider grammatical incorrectness to be actionable, unless its spamming or an obvious cover for trolling. This does not mean, however, that we can't call you out for using the wrong terminology and abusing the English language.

Hmmm.... no.

Flame-bait? How? Those are all legitimate definitions of the word. The word "homosexualist" does exist, it just hasn't been used lately.

[Othelos]

1. And us native English speakers have already explained to you MULTIPLE times how your use of the word is indefensible, and of how you pretending its legitimate is about as stupid as us using the Russian phrase "to get disappeared (as in, the political sense)" to mean "to get lost (as in the wilderness)".

If you are such a lingusitics expert, can you tell me what is a "Russian phrase to get disappeared (as in, the political sense)"?..

3. Because the mods don't usually consider grammatical incorrectness to be actionable, unless its spamming or an obvious cover for trolling. This does not mean, however, that we can't call you out for using the wrong terminology and abusing the English language.

Hmmm.... no.

Flame-bait? How? Those are all legitimate definitions of the word. The word "homosexualist" does exist, it just hasn't been used lately.

Homosexualism is awkward and improper, because the suffix -ism refers to an ideology of some sort. Homosexuality is a state of being.

I don't see why it's so difficult to use words that are more precise for what you are trying to get across.

[Juristonia]

Homosexualism is awkward and improper, because the suffix -ism refers to an ideology of some sort. Homosexuality is a state of being.

I don't see why it's so difficult to use words that are more precise for what you are trying to get across.

It isn't. He just keeps doing it because it gets people worked up.
Childish, but effective.

1. As I said before, you are a man or a woman, not a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transsexual.
2. Yes, everywhere. A clause in the DOMA guaranteed federal marriage benefits for "LGBT" couples.
3. Spouses are often subject to the same visiting hours as everyone else.

1. The T in LGBT is for Transgender. And, speaking as somebody who is transgender, I'm neither a man nor a woman. Also, lesbian, gay, bi, and trans are labels which are just as legitimate as "man" and "woman". kthnxbai

2. Prove it.

3. You misunderstand the issue or are purposely misrepresenting it, then. The issue is that a straight man can visit his wife in the hospital, make medical decisions for her should she be incapacitated, and make funeral arrangements for her. A gay man cannot do the same for his boyfriend in areas which have not legalized SSM, because those rights are reserved for married couples, and he cannot marry his boyfriend in those jurisdictions which haven't legalized it, nor can he get married in a jurisdiction that has, and have that marriage recognized in those jurisdictions which haven't.

@ every single line of this.

[Grenartia]

1. And us native English speakers have already explained to you MULTIPLE times how your use of the word is indefensible, and of how you pretending its legitimate is about as stupid as us using the Russian phrase "to get disappeared (as in, the political sense)" to mean "to get lost (as in the wilderness)".

1. If you are such a lingusitics expert, can you tell me what is a "Russian phrase to get disappeared (as in, the political sense)"?..

3. Because the mods don't usually consider grammatical incorrectness to be actionable, unless its spamming or an obvious cover for trolling. This does not mean, however, that we can't call you out for using the wrong terminology and abusing the English language.

2. Hmmm.... no.

Flame-bait? How? Those are all legitimate definitions of the word. The word "homosexualist" does exist, it just hasn't been used lately.

1. Strawman. I never claimed to be any flavor of linguistic expert.

2. And, that contradicts ANYTHING I said, HOW...?

[Rebellious Fishermen]

"NSG, what do you think of homosexuals?

I think the above is what you meant by "Communists and Socialists".

[Grenartia]

"NSG, what do you think of homosexuals?

I think the above is what you meant by "Communists and Socialists".

>implying most of the forum isn't ancaps, libertarians, fascists, and centrists.

[Lyttenburg]

1. Strawman. I never claimed to be any flavor of linguistic expert.

IS it too much to expect from an user-person to provide a real example of what said user-person is trying to use as an example?

2. And, that contradicts ANYTHING I said, HOW...?

Do you know the definition of the word "grammatical"?

And, maybe, you should ANSWER the questions, unless we can emulate Israeli army from an old joke for some time answering question with question?

[Grenartia]

1. Strawman. I never claimed to be any flavor of linguistic expert.

1. IS it too much to expect from an user-person to provide a real example of what said user-person is trying to use as an example?

2. And, that contradicts ANYTHING I said, HOW...?

2. Do you know the definition of the word "grammatical"?

3. And, maybe, you should ANSWER the questions, unless we can emulate Israeli army from an old joke for some time answering question with question?

1. I've explained before how it is a real example of what I'm talking about.

2. Yes. Do you? Us native speakers are telling you that the word you are using is grammatically incorrect in the context with which you're trying to use it. I know my language better and more intimately than you do.

3. I have answered them. Be as intellectually dishonest as you like, it doesn't change the fact that I've answered the questions.

[Othelos]

1. Strawman. I never claimed to be any flavor of linguistic expert.

IS it too much to expect from an user-person to provide a real example of what said user-person is trying to use as an example?

2. And, that contradicts ANYTHING I said, HOW...?

Do you know the definition of the word "grammatical"?

And, maybe, you should ANSWER the questions, unless we can emulate Israeli army from an old joke for some time answering question with question?

Maybe you should stop using antiquated words that are awkward.

[Lyttenburg]

1. I've explained before how it is a real example of what I'm talking about.

Nope. There is no Russian word for "get disappeared (in political sense)". While the "homosexualism" is a real word with the real meaning.

2. Yes. Do you? Us native speakers are telling you that the word you are using is grammatically incorrect in the context with which you're trying to use it. I know my language better and more intimately than you do.

3. I have answered them. Be as intellectually dishonest as you like, it doesn't change the fact that I've answered the questions.

Cut this High and Mighty act, will you, oh, "native English speaker"?

In linguistics, grammar is the set of structural rules governing the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language. The term refers also to the study of such rules, and this field includes morphology, syntax, and phonology, often complemented by phonetics, semantics, and pragmatics.

- da Wikidorkia.

In the quote that I've provided Farn said that

Those are all legitimate definitions of the word. The word "homosexualist" does exist, it just hasn't been used lately.

so, nothing "grammatically wrong" with it.

But, 'cmon! Insist all you want. But this would be an off-topic.

Maybe you should stop using antiquated words that are awkward.

Antiquated for whom? And if I won't stop, then what?

[Othelos]

Maybe you should stop using antiquated words that are awkward.

Antiquated for whom? And if I won't stop, then what?

For everyone, I personally have never heard or seen that word until you brought it up.

If you don't stop, then I suppose you will continue deliberately throwing native english speakers off when talking about homosexuality.